• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence of the Non-Physical

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your thought can be read with an MRI scan which means they are measurable/physical.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan
This is patent nonsense and a really good example of junk science masquerading as popular science. Mapping sentences on a similarity space via crowd-sourcing methods (Mturk) to build a space in which a statistical machine learning approach using distance metrics/similarity can be constructed so that the same sentence already mapped onto the mathematical representation can then be fed, in addition, a huge amount of information from 7 participants all reading the same set of questions so as to allow the algorithm(s) to be trained well enough for an almost 90% fit in its ability to discriminate neural patterns is NOT AT ALL LIKE READING THOUGHTS!!!! Even in principle, the entirety of the experiment rests on certain assumptions about semantic categorization in neural representation and how these relate to the compositionality of complex linguistic structures like basic propositions. What the researchers did was assume a particular approach and use classification and clustering approaches based on both data from MTurkers and the MRI participants to train their algorithm to be able to decompose the signals over repeated runs into the kind of factors they assumed to be present to begin with and as represented in the areas of the brain they had already selected.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Emotions/feelings are created by chemicals in the brain, like dopamine, adrenalin, serotonin etc...
Understanding the chemicals controlling your mood

Nerves are physical and use electrical signals. Which is measurable which means physical. What we consciously experience is the result of an electrochemical process. There's no need for a non-physical component for any of this. I understand we are not usually aware of the physical process of conscious awareness but so far, as people have gone looking for it we can find the cause and effect.

Do you understand that your words of the non-physical are physical and thus you have nothing to complain about. That I believe in the non-physical, is physical and thus real, exists and can be observed by science. Everything is the same as physical and all differences are irrelevant, because they are all physical.
If you complain about this, it is physical. If you accept it, it is physical. If you ignore it, it is physical. If you declare it nonsense, unreal or what not, it is physical.
If we agree, it is physical. If we disagree, it is physical.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Now you are in effect doing the fallacy of reification.

I don't see how. I'm not confusing your thoughts about an object with the actual object. In fact, I'm doing the opposite. I saying a thought is a thought, only that it is detectible. The ability to detect something is not the same as assuming something is other than what it is.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't see how. I'm not confusing your thoughts about an object with the actual object. In fact, I'm doing the opposite. I saying a thought is a thought, only that it is detectible. The ability to detect something is not the same as assuming something is other than what it is.

This is physical: The ability to detect something is not the same as assuming something is other than what it is.
But so is this: The ability to detect something is the same as assuming something is other than what it is.

That is your problem with your model. You want to allow for subjective understanding, the bold one is that, but you only accept objective evidence.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
This is patent nonsense and a really good example of junk science masquerading as popular science. Mapping sentences on a similarity space via crowd-sourcing methods (Mturk) to build a space in which a statistical machine learning approach using distance metrics/similarity can be constructed so that the same sentence already mapped onto the mathematical representation can then be fed, in addition, a huge amount of information from 7 participants all reading the same set of questions so as to allow the algorithm(s) to be trained well enough for an almost 90% fit in its ability to discriminate neural patterns is NOT AT ALL LIKE READING THOUGHTS!!!! Even in principle, the entirety of the experiment rests on certain assumptions about semantic categorization in neural representation and how these relate to the compositionality of complex linguistic structures like basic propositions. What the researchers did was assume a particular approach and use classification and clustering approaches based on both data from MTurkers and the MRI participants to train their algorithm to be able to decompose the signals over repeated runs into the kind of factors they assumed to be present to begin with and as represented in the areas of the brain they had already selected.

Ok, the point is not the mind reading, only that we can detect something going on in the brain. It can be as simple as being able to detect when someone is wake vs asleep. Something is different and that difference is detectible therefore physical.

However, do you have an answer to the question in the OP?
What non-physical do you accept?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ok, the point is not the mind reading, only that we can detect something going on in the brain. It can be as simple as being able to detect when someone is wake vs asleep. Something is different and that difference is detectible therefore physical.

However, do you have an answer to the question in the OP?
What non-physical do you accept?

But there is no difference between awake and asleep, because it is all physical. And there is no difference between you don't accepting the non-physical, and me accepting it, because it is all physical.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Good, we agree. Both right and wrong are physical so if I claim something wrong, it is physical. You have nothing to complain about because it is all physical, natural, real, exists and happen in the real, objective reality.
What is your problem? Religion is apart of the world and as real as gravity, since everything is physical. Even imagination, nonsense, unreal and all those other negatives are nothing but physical. So what is your complaint? According to your model everything is physical including the denial that everything is physical.

Yes, I am doing a variant of reductio ad absurdum on you, but that is also physical, so you should have no problem with that.

Ok, so I don' t see it as absurd. If I'm saying thought/ideas are physical then I agree with the above. However to say the thought of God is the same as the physical reality of God would be a fallacy of reification.

I don't really have a complaint yet as no one has offered up something as non-physical that they use for evidence.
Since thoughts and feelings are detectible, that is all that is required for them to be physical.

If your thought were not detectable, at least to you, then I'd suppose you wouldn't be having any thoughts. :D
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
But there is no difference between awake and asleep, because it is all physical. And there is no difference between you don't accepting the non-physical, and me accepting it, because it is all physical.

Is there a difference between hot and cold. You can detect the difference can you not? Why do you say there is no difference when we can obviously detect that there is? That's the whole point. If you can detect a difference then it is a physical thing.

Where you can't detect a deference, well that exists outside of the human experience.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ok, so I don' t see it as absurd. If I'm saying thought/ideas are physical then I agree with the above. However to say the thought of God is the same as the physical reality of God would be a fallacy of reification.

I don't really have a complaint yet as no one has offered up something as non-physical that they use for evidence.
Since thoughts and feelings are detectible, that is all that is required for them to be physical.

If your thought were not detectable, at least to you, then I'd suppose you wouldn't be having any thoughts. :D

Yeah, to me that is a fallacy of reification. You are doing reductive physicalism and that is philosophy, not science. The problem is that in your model a fallacy of reification is also physical and not really a fallacy, because fallacies are also physical.

Do you get it now? You can't complain that there are cases of a fallacy of reification, because they are also physical.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Is there a difference between hot and cold. You can detect the difference can you not? Why do you say there is no difference when we can obviously detect that there is? That's the whole point. If you can detect a difference then it is a physical thing.

Where you can't detect a deference, well that exists outside of the human experience.

I can detect no meaningful difference, because same, similar, different and and/or or and versus or are all physical. If we agreed, it would be physical, if we disagree, it would be physical.
You are doing a one factor explanation and thus everything is the one factor. It is physical.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Yeah, to me that is a fallacy of reification. You are doing reductive physicalism and that is philosophy, not science. The problem is that in your model a fallacy of reification is also physical and not really a fallacy, because fallacies are also physical.

Do you get it now? You can't complain that there are cases of a fallacy of reification, because they are also physical.

Yes, thoughts are physical. However thoughts are not the same as the object the thought is about. Each, the thought and the object has its own physical existence.

Can I have a separate thought, which is a physical process, that someone is confusing their thought of an object with the object itself? Sure, why not? None of this steps outside the realm of physicality.

For example if I see someone confusing a map of a location with the actual physical location, the map is physical, the actual location is physical and my thought that this is a fallacy of reification is also physical. Where is the non-physical component?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things


As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

Depends on your epistemology. Always.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ok, the point is not the mind reading, only that we can detect something going on in the brain.
We need subjects/participants to TELL us about what they are doing (or at least assume they are following the tasks) in order to get even basic interpretations of neural correlate data off of the ground. What we can't do is make the leap from the assumption that brain imaging data is correlated with particular cognitive processes to the conclusion all cognitive processes or consciousness or the mind is physical (apart from a priori assumptions).
It can be as simple as being able to detect when someone is wake vs asleep. Something is different and that difference is detectible therefore physical.
By that logic, I've seen people "detect" the presence of ghosts and other paranormal activity.

However, do you have an answer to the question in the OP?
What non-physical do you accept?
I don't think it makes much sense. In physics, we deal with things all of the time that we don't really regard as being "physical" in the same sense the term is usually used colloquially. A lot of "fundamental" physical processes and constituents are in fact book-keeping devices for extracting data from experiments in HEP physics or in other similar arenas. Elsewhere, the problem is circumvented by using terms like "information" which is claimed to be more fundamental and treated as such because it is abstract to begin with and we don't have to worry about metaphysics.
We still make claims, however, about the very physical nature of things like probability currents and probability conservation, which is not physical in any meaningful sense but absolutely vital to our understanding of fundamental physics and its foundations.
On the other hand, absolutely basic components of physical experiences are excluded a priori from physics because we need to do experiments, Thus we need to pretend that we can set initial conditions for physical systems (with or without interaction or environment) in an idealized manner.
As a result, something as basic as "time" enters into fundamental physics as a parameter (even when we have to rename it as e.g., proper time because we need a temporal dimension to physical space).
Most of what is called "physical" in HEP, quantum many-body physics, quantum field theories, etc., consists of virtual processes and particles that are not physical in the sense the term is usually meant.
Additionally, the governing laws themselves (as well as governing principles such as the action) are postulated to have real physical consequences at cosmic and microcosmic scales but to have no physical existence.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I can detect no meaningful difference, because same, similar, different and and/or or and versus or are all physical. If we agreed, it would be physical, if we disagree, it would be physical.
You are doing a one factor explanation and thus everything is the one factor. It is physical.

Sure, everything we humans can know is detectible. What exists which humans cannot detect, can we humans know about?

If I'm mistaken, then there must exist something, undetectable to humans that humans know about.
So maybe something like that does exist but I wouldn't use it as evidence to support something I believe.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Depends on your epistemology. Always.

Ok, fair enough.
My epistemology is that in order for us humans to have knowledge of something, we have to be able to detect it.
Without this ability to detect something, we can't claim to have knowledge about it.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
You can't see meaning or any other abstract. Read up on the fallacy of reification.

I believe you are falling for this fallacy by confusing symbolic language for a non-materialistic process. All intellectual processes are physical. They rely on physical interaction and are observable. Meaning is thus physical just like all emotions. The mind, as mental representation, isn't perceived as being material neither are feelings because they aren't tangible in the traditional sense of the term, but that's of course just a mental representation and not the reality. The reality is that the mind is physical. The picture of the mind and emotion as non-physical is only to make the difference between the property of our intellect and objects.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Yes, thoughts are physical. However thoughts are not the same as the object the thought is about. Each, the thought and the object has its own physical existence.

Can I have a separate thought, which is a physical process, that someone is confusing their thought of an object with the object itself? Sure, why not? None of this steps outside the realm of physicality.

For example if I see someone confusing a map of a location with the actual physical location, the map is physical, the actual location is physical and my thought that this is a fallacy of reification is also physical. Where is the non-physical component?
They can't really be different, because they are both physical.

Here is what you have done in effect.
You have replaced physical and non-physical with 2 different kinds of physical and declared one better in effect. That is physical of course. But so is that I treat them as equal and none better than the other, because what is better, is local, depended on context and different brains.

But you want your brain, your different version of being physical to be the standard for all different brains.
There is nothing new in that. I just use my brain differently and you can't really complain, because we are both physical and thus real, exist and so on.

Do you get we are different in how we are physical and that includes that I can physical believe in the non-physical, not matter how confused that is to you? I have been doing that for over 25 years now and no, I am not religious. I just don't believe like you do.
So here it is again. Any claim of in effect a wrong is also physical and I am doing a wrong right now. That is the problem.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Ok, fair enough.
My epistemology is that in order for us humans to have knowledge of something, we have to be able to detect it.
Without this ability to detect something, we can't claim to have knowledge about it.

I appreciate your honest response. It is in my experience, very very rare. In fact, this is the first ever response to the question of epistemology as far as I can remember, in this very forum. So maybe I never asked you.

Anyway, detection is not an explanation of your epistemology Nakosis. What is your source of knowledge in making this so called "detection"? How do you go about it? What is the subject? And how do you verify it? I mean, how do you propose to verify it?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I believe you are falling for this fallacy by confusing symbolic language for a non-materialistic process. All intellectual processes are physical. They rely on physical interaction and are observable. Meaning is thus physical. The mind, as mental representation, isn't perceived as being material, but that's of course just a mental representation and not the reality. The reality is that the mind is physical.

Yeah, and that I am confused is physical, real, exists and is a part of the world. I have know that for over 25 years now.
I don't believe in reality like you do, but I am still here. Apparently. :D
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sure, everything we humans can know is detectible. What exists which humans cannot detect, can we humans know about?

If I'm mistaken, then there must exist something, undetectable to humans that humans know about.
So maybe something like that does exist but I wouldn't use it as evidence to support something I believe.

No, the problem is that everything is physical, so the undetectable is physical. Since I believe in that in some sense according to your model, there is no problem, because what I do, is real, exists and is physical.
 
Top